I am making an anti vandalism bot that notifies me every time a page is edited or created, along with the details, and asks if i want to revert the edit. I havent a clue what to save the file as (.what?), and im making it on my notepad. Then, i also have no clue what type of page to bring the file up on the wiktionary (.what?), then i wanted you to see the scripts for it before i run it, to help me check for errors. Reply on my talk page. Please help me out here, i cant download Python so i have to make it using notepad, and i just need a little help, since my mom hasnt unblocked the Python website yet nor any websites other than wiipedia that will help me with this. I need the help from a user who has made a bot. Please help ASAP, The7DeadlySins 02:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Atelaes: About this deletion: "14:00, 2 July 2008 Atelaes (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Transwiki:Photios" ‎ (Improper transwiki") can you kindly show me where the instructions are to properly move a transwiki so that the history page transfers? since the transwiki autobot is down I honestly don't know how to do it. I was trying to help the contributor Transwiki it, but we both do not know how to do it... see talk on my talk page. Goldenrowley 16:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. I must control my inner wikipedian if i am to become a disciplined wiktionarian. Oh, and please dont block me, i am trying my best, not vandalizing. Cheers, The7DeadlySins 01:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 20:28

Is this correct? The second character doesn't look right. Some {{term}} uses that seem properly spelled yield redlinks referring to this. eidetic is one. DCDuringTALK 17:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I was thrown by the three different appearances of the iota. In a heading it appears as a straight line. In the edit window it appeared with curves at the bottom and the top. In edittools, it appears with a curve only at the bottom. I haven't compared with the many combinations of breathings, accents, bold, and size, let alone checked for treatment of other characters. I don't like to have to use a larger font size which squeezes content off the screen, so I may have to leave accented characters (especially Greek) to those with younger eyes. DCDuringTALK 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're familiar with those little green and red "Loeb Classical Libaray" editions of Classical works, yes? Well, I was noticing today that my copy of Theophrastus (Enquiry into Plants) has no copyright statement. Could it be possible that there is a mjor set of annotated translations of Classical works out there that is not under copyright? Can you imagine what OCR could do towards creating for Greek and Roman texts along the lines of what A-cai has been doing for Romance of the Three Kingdoms? --EncycloPetey 22:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, no, I'm not immediately familiar with that line of books. However, if my initial assumptions about what they are are correct, then that would be pretty sweet. A lot of scanning..... :) And in fairness, to reach the level of what A-cai is doing would take a bit more than simple scanning and OCR, but it would make for excellent substrate. Do they include the original as well as the translation, or just the translation? -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 23:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Better than that: The original text and translation are on facing pages, with footnotes noting where manuscript copies are at variance. There is usually an index/glossary of some kind; my copy of Theophrastus lists the various plants he mentions with notes about translating the plant names, while my copy of Ovid's Metamorphoses has a lengthy Appendix covering the major mythological charcaters. --EncycloPetey 23:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am here to nag you to finish gathering the research in Late Byzantine Atticist phonology. :3 - Gilgamesh 03:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been rather busy as of late with some unexpected projects. However, I will renew my efforts on this. Please nag again if I don't do it reasonably soon. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 05:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I shall try to make a point to nag you again in a timely and jarring manner. :3 - Gilgamesh 06:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Atelaes, thanks for the heads up on the Aramaic autoformatting. I have a favour to ask: if you have time, can you look into the entries under Category:arc:Ancient Greek derivations and see if the spelling on all the Ancient Greek words is correct? I don't have polytonic fonts on my computer and, even if I did, I know very little about Greek. When I can't find the word I'm looking for in Wiktionary, I have to write the word out myself and I get the feeling some of the red-linked words are because I messed up with the diacritics. --334a 02:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I made a few corrections, but only one (נילוס) managed to turn a red link blue. Sorry our grc coverage is so poor. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 04:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you had created template, and I would like to discuss it with you. I would really prefer that we not have it, for a few reasons. The basic grc verb inflection template is {{grc-verb}}. The problem with your template is that it really cannot handle the variety which is present in Ancient Greek verbs. Ultimately, we are trying to cover all of the Ancient Greek language, including Attic, Koine, Byzantine, Ionic, Epic, Doric, Cretan, etc. Between all of these different times and places, such a formulaic method will ultimately fail to account for the variability in all but a few verbs, where {{grc-verb}} can. Your thoughts? -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 20:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I know it can't cover the whole variability of the ancient greek verbs but perhaps it could make a little simplier to write some verbal forms (which are obviously not all but also not so few). Anyway if you mean that the problem is making the pages dedicated to the greek verbs as homogeneous as possible in terms of source-code and templates I can't say you aren't right when you prefer the all-inclusive grc-verb template. If this is not the problem I think they can just work in parallel--Gronk 21:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that your template can't do a proper job with most grc verbs (including ὁρίζω, wait a few minutes and you'll see why). And, to be honest, I'd prefer not to have it at all, as I think it will discourage editors from adding all the forms, something we dearly want. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 21:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, take a look at ὁρίζω. Note that your template could not handle the irregular future (which is actually the dominant usage for this verb). Also, the accentuation on the aorist passive was incorrect. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 21:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, probably it still need a little work (anyway i corrected the error with the aorist passive)!. However I created that template recently and I haven't tried it on many verbs. The problem with the irregular forms is indeed not so easy to be solved but for example I could add another variable (irregular forms) to the main template...--Gronk 22:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what should we do about the Jèrriais entries? This is a dialect of Norman, but neither it nor its parent language have ISO codes. I ask because there are a large number of improperly named audio files on Commons, where they were prefixed with jer (which is the ISO for Jere, a language in Nigeria) and they will also be affected by this. --EncycloPetey 05:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've given it some thought, but have not come to any sort of perfect solution. A first step would be to change all of the L2's to Norman and put Jèrriais as a contag. Since Norman has no SIL code, it won't take it off of Robert's L2 list, but it's still an improvement in my opinion. Past that, I'm not really sure what to do, what with SIL being retarded and not recognizing Norman. However, now that I've got you, it brings up some thoughts I've been having on how to format dialects in an official manner. Any interest in pursuing such an inherently messy and complicated topic? Btw, I am assuming you're still IRC impotent? I would love to have this convo with you in realtime. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 05:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Jèrriais should (someday) get an -3 code; but for now we need an extension, like roa-jer. Norman itself needs to be tagged as roa-nor or some such. Jèrriais does have 3 dialects within it. SIL and 639 are very weak in the various minor European languages. (Another side effect of SIL's original and continuing purpose? They don't need to bother with minor languages where people also speak a big Euro language? Dunno. ;-) Robert Ullmann 06:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.....the Wikipedia article seems to imply that Jèrriais is a dialect of Norman, not a language in its own right. Do you have a source which asserts that its a language? I take it you're still impotent as EP. :P -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 06:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

From the wp article on Norman: "Jèrriais and Guernésiais are recognised as regional languages by the British and Irish governments within the framework of the British-Irish Council" which is consistent from what I understand from the ISO -4 process, that Jèrriais will be coded (3 letters) as a language. ("I") To include them in Norman makes it a macrolanguage (I hate that term). We've certainly seen some interest in Jèrriais as distinct from Norman.

Anyway to get to IRC without crashing the local NAT/proxy would be cool. Robert Ullmann 06:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't suppose you have access to unreleased SIL docs at all, do you? If we could find out what code they're thinking of giving it, we could just use that for now, and then change it later if we need to. We're already using a font which won't be released by Unicode for awhile (Avestan) :-). It's a fairly simple bot fix to make the necessary changes when the official proclamation is made.

PS: I'm also available on a number of regular IM's, if either of you can do that. Having a real conversation on talk pages is so tedious. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 06:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ick! There is a Norman-language Wikipedia that has appropriated the code nrm, but nrm is a Malaysian language code! --EncycloPetey 07:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WMF supposedly has a "language committee", but they (if they exist) screw up regularly. Don't have a clue what they are thinking. (And the request to move zh-yue to yue etc has been pending for 18 months with zero action.) They (Gerard) denied a request for a Jèrriais pedia saying it had no language code (!) but then they assign conflicting crap? (see Swiss-Deutch, which was set up with the code for Tosk Albanian...) We have to do our own things when needed. Robert Ullmann 07:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! thanks for telling me! I've to learn the en.wikt standards as they are quite different from the Italian one, so I'm happy to get advices. I'm trying to set a personal way to approach to the translations: all I translate from Italian into whatever other language I'll create the interwiki to line things up. I hope to do it right though. Thanks again! --Pino(ﾋﾟﾉ)(会話) 01:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sex on the phone? Standard Operating Procedure? Start of Production? I may miss something. --Felonia 15:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added {{see glossary}} (giving a link to Wiktionary:Glossary) to the top of SOP, please add it where-ever else you feel it is necessary. (SoP means "sum of parts" - i.e. there is no point in giving the definition of the phrase because it can be trivially worked out from the words it contains). Conrad.Irwin 15:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: May I ask why you reverted Interwicket's edit? We want to have interwikis. I have reverted your edit. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is an interwiki? Also, why am I not surprised that a user named 'Interwicket' is daringly adding interwikis to each and every entry imaginable? Thanks in advance. --Gabeedman 05:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes to this entry's etymology. First of all, there is no way that Galen could have coined this word, as he died centuries before the English language came into being. What the source probably meant was that he coined the grc word. However, not specifying such is confusing and linguistically sloppy, and we shall have none of that here. Finally, I can find no evidence of any grc word with the spelling you gave in the etymology, and so have removed it. Quite frankly, I would have expected a word with λαιός ‎(laiós), a cognate of laevus with the same meaning, but there is no ἀμφιλαιός ‎(amphilaiós) either. If you have any alternative transliterations, or perhaps a work in which the word is found, or any other clues as the word, I'm happy to investigate further. As it is currently, I have hit dead ends. Finally, when you have an etymology that you would like a grc person to look over, it is far more reliable to leave {{attention|grc}} in the entry than a plea in the edit summary. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 18:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. I’ll note {{attention|grc}} for the future. I found the alleged Ancient Greek root in the 1658 citation (which is triplicated, somewhat more clearly, in two copies of an 1835 publication); furthermore, it and other sources attribute the coinage to Galen. I of course meant that Galen coined the Ancient Greek word whence the English term derives, but I can see how that was not clearly expressed in the way I wrote the etymology. Anyway, does any of this help you? †﴾(u):Raifʻhār(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for sorting that. A couple of things though: Shouldn’t the transcriptions of the Greek have acute accents? And: Do you agree that it’d be good to include a reference to the coiner of the Ancient Greek word (i.e., Galen)? †﴾(u):Raifʻhār(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't include accentuation in Ancient Greek transliteration. Ultimately, transliteration is not meant to be precise, but rather to give a user uninitiated with Greek script a general semblance of what the word sounds like. grc diacritics are simply too complex to be reasonably transcribed into a workable transliteration scheme. Remember, there are three accents, and they are tonal accents (not stress accents), and we don't fully know what they represented. Modern Greek transcribes their accents here, but they only have a single stress accent. Ultimately, we have IPA pronunciations (and the actual Greek script) where more precision is necessary. I'll take a closer look into coinages sometime later today (a bout of frisbee shall otherwise occupy me for awhile). -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 21:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

While I’m here, I’ve a quæstion:
In traditional Romanisation, <αι> becomes <ae> or <æ> and <οι> becomes <oe> or <œ>. However, <αη> (as in the many aër- words) becomes <ae> or <aë>, but never <æ>. So I was wondering, how are the digraphs <οη>, <ωι>, and <ωη> Romanised? I thought I’d ask you as you’re the person whom I’ve contact with who’s most likely to know… Danko! †﴾(u):Raifʻhār(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear that Galen coined the word, as Aristophanes used it something like six hundred years earlier. It is conceivable that Galen commandeered the word for a new sense, perhaps a medical, more specific sense, but it was around before him. Unfortunately, the use is not in one of Aristophanes' surviving plays, but rather in a surviving fragment of one of the non-surviving plays. Sadly, I cannot find any copies of the fragments (in the original Greek) online, and I possess no copies myself. As for the romanization question, the trick is in the diphthongs. αι and οι are diphthongs, while most of the other combinations you've presented are not. I think ωι sort of was, at least in early Greek. However, my impression is that any diphthongs that began with long vowels (such as ω, η), if they ever existed, died out in later Greek (later Ancient Greek, that is). Also, as far as I know, there aren't any diphthongs which end in η. In any case, the Romans did a fairly faithful job of importing Greek sounds with the Greek words. My guess (and it's just that, a guess) is that ligatures (which, bear in mind, are a medieval invention, and did not exist in classical Latin) represent diphthongs in Latin. So, if a combination of vowels was not a diphthong in Greek, they wouldn't take it as one in Latin, and thus no ligature. However, you should know that phonology is really not my strong suit. If you like you may want to pass this by User:Gilgamesh, as he's a fair hand with Ancient Greek phonology, and representing sounds in different scripts is somewhat of a hobby of his. However, be warned that if you ask him, you're liable to hear more than you ever wanted to know on the subject. He's really into the stuff. Hope that helps. Let me know if my response was unintelligible. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 06:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I’ve noted all that in the entry for ambilevous; please check it out to make sure that what I’ve written is correct.

Regarding the diphthongs and ligatures, I forgot to mention the vowel combinations which include epsila (is that the correct plural of epsilon BTW?), namely <αε>, <οε>, and <ωε>; how would they be transcribed? –As <aë>, <oë>, and <ōë> (though without a macron in reality), respectively?

I noticed this revision of yours to the etymology section of paradigm; it’s interesting to note that the Greek <ει> was reduced to <ī> in Latin. Any idea why that happened?

Gilgamesh and I share an interest in such things, so I probably shall draw his attention to this exchange of ours at some points. Thanks for your help. †﴾(u):Raifʻhār(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been reformatting entries which use templates like {{PG.}}, {{PIE.}}, etc., to use {{proto}}. This is part of a grander attempt to create a more unified approach to etymon language presentation on Wiktionary, where everything can be done with either {{etyl}} or {{proto}}. It seems like most of the entries which do so are English/Old English (I'm kind of thinking that you were the only one with any knowledge of reconstructed languages before proto came around). Anyway, I just thought I'd let you know, and if you happen to be editing entries which use these templates, if you could switch them it would save me a bit of work. Thanks. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 23:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries; updating to {{proto}} is pretty much part of my normal routine anyway when editing an entry. I notice you've sorted it so you can have it display without the language at all, which is a good development... Ƿidsiþ 07:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, thanks for your notification. Well, as far as I know, in case of some words, it is very difficult to say which stage of a Germanic language a word has been borrowed but it is very evident to have been borrowed from that language, so therefore "Proto-Germanic" (synonymous with "Common Germanic") is acceptable. -- Frous 11:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The definitions are very subtly different though; and give different directions. The reason is that the Earth is not a sphere, and so the Earth's gravity is not spherical (it bulges at the equator, quite apart from any mountains and so forth), so a plumbline and the line through the center of the Earth are off by a tiny fraction. The existing definitions are inadequate.Wolfkeeper 17:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I had a bit of free time, and I came up with this and was wondering if it would be useful to you. It's in place at دوستی. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 23:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Thanks for taking the time to create it! :) --Dijan 09:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'd be happy to create a Hindi version as well, if you think they'd be useful. However, I would like some feedback, what you think doesn't work well about it, what it's missing, etc. You're in a far better position to judge the needs of these languages than I. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 18:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it very much. I've really had no time to do it myself, nor am I skilled in template creation ;) The only thing I have a problem with is that the transliteration takes on the formating (font) of the "ur-Arab" template. If that could be fixed, it would be perfect. Yes, please, if you have time, go ahead and create a Hindi one as well. Thanks! :) --Dijan 20:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. But the inflected form entries should not just merely show the part of speech, it should list the definitions pertinant to the inflected form, and list a sentence for it.68.148.164.166 23:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We do keep romanized entries of foreign scripts; examples include lin and gong. It makes navigating the site a lot easier, especially for users with keyboards that have latin letters or users without foreign scripts installed on their PC's.--TBC 07:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done a preliminary audit of his edits. However, I only have my understanding of wikt formatting and a basic understanding of Germanic language geneology. I would feel much better about all this if you were to do a double-check. If you feel a block is in order, simply to give you time to sift, I'll support it. Many thanks. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep an eye on them...I'd made a few changes already, and the only ones I was really unhappy about were the ones you just reverted (you are braver than I am..). I don't think I want to block him, or not yet at least. It is a bit exhausting, but he does seem to have modified his ideas somewhat already. I will sort the Gothic out when I work up the energy.. Ƿidsiþ 19:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've double-checked most of what he's worked on today. I hope the block's not for too long, we seemed to be communicating better eventually....it will be nice to have a break for a bit though :-) Ƿidsiþ 18:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just a day. And yes, nearly all of his edits seem to have you trailing. I have only reverted where you seem to have consented against your better judgment (I would much prefer to have your better judgment than his), as well as a bit of formatting. However, thief was inexcusable. I've seen too many editors with antiquated/ridiculous/bizarre notions on etymology (e.g. User:Athang1504, User:Kassios) make huge workloads for others to go through to allow it to happen again. If you prefer, I can leave this situation in your hands, as you seem to have it under control (and are clearly better qualified for it), and perhaps I'm simply making it more difficult for you. However, you must promise to let someone know if you can't (or stop wanting to) keep up. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I appreciate it. I dearly hope he won't be another Kassios, or Drago (remember him?). Ƿidsiþ 18:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Drago was before my time, but I run into his echo fairly often. One of these days, I suppose I should go through both of their edits one by one........if only they weren't so damned prolific. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 19:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding [2], the verb is defective, which means it is missing a number of major inflectional forms and so cannot use on of the verb templates. --EncycloPetey 19:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

But it would still be a good idea if the table formatting was templatized, even if all the forms had to be entered by hand. It would probably we worth investing in a Latin counterpart to {{grc-conj-present-blank-full}}. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Atelaes, that only covers the present tense. The Latin verb conjugations potentially include all forms, which would require more than 100 specified parameters for the lemmas, then double that for the macron forms. --EncycloPetey 00:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I said that, I meant a blank template which covers the forms Latin conjugation charts usually have. And I realize that one would have to enter a lot of forms, but I fail to see how that would be any more code within the entry. Finally, you could have all the conjugation charts route through it, so that you can change all Latin conjugation charts at once, if need be. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 04:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. However, after seeing that the dicussion has turned into a political one and has become a bit insulting, I chose not to give my view on it. Nonetheless, I'm keeping the template on my user page due to personal reasons and beliefs, which unlike Ivan, I'm not willing to propagate here on Wiktionary. --Dijan 17:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking, although I'm not so hot on {{proto}}, it shouldn't be too difficult to get my head around.

On a lot of the entries I'm fixing other issues as well, ones related to {{term}} (missing, incorrect, no lang= parameters, etc) are the most common but one thing that any bot author ought to be mindful of is etymology templates not in the Etymology section. The best thing I think would just be to flag these for human action. Thryduulf 10:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It always has seemed funny to me, but most etymologies for scientific terms invented in last 200 years make the etymology to be New Latin, without regard to the ultimately Greek origin of the words. It seems always to be that Greek-derived words are not given their due, but Latin forms the matrix of scientific nomenclature and Greek merely some reinforcing fiber. DCDuringTALK 18:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

While User 148.243.82.130 is adding words that look Spanish, at least some of them are definitely not Spanish, and don't seem to be Portuguese or Asturian either. I'm not sure whether the added words are Mirandese, Galician, Aragonese, or what. --EncycloPetey 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my Spanish is crap, so I wasn't assuming. However, I checked albéitar against the Spanish Wiktionary, and just ripped off their info. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 20:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is said that one of every six words Shakespeare wrote he invented, But then the English language was not as overburdened with words in his day as it is in ours .... —This unsigned comment was added by Drucker0905 (talk • contribs) at 14:59, 24 August 2008.

Sadly, invention is a luxury of the author, but not of the lexicographer. Also, aside from technical jargon, I wonder if the English language was all that sparse in his day as compared to ours. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 06:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, people who make this inflated claim are confusing coinage with attestation. Shakespeare is the earliest written example of many words, but that’s because people didn’t write the vernacular much – only playwrights would. It is impossible to know how many words Shakespeare coined and how many had been in oral use before he wrote them down. See also: w:Shakespeare's_influence#Words_used__by_Shakespeare.

I read your message in french Wiktionary. I can import directly pages and theirs histories from english wiktionary to the french one. thank's for all. Have you given a message in greek Wiktionary?--Bertrand GRONDIN 10:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want import from this project to french wiktionary, you'll be able to ask me for that : I'm sysop in french wikitionary (and on all french project, and bureaucrate on french wikiquote and french wikinews).--Bertrand GRONDIN 10:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Atelaes, when you next have a moment can you pretty please glance into the etymology of embolon, there are a large number of books that say it comes from the "Greek embolon" though no-one can agree on what that meant. Conrad.Irwin 00:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have these two questions: 1. I edited the page adding pronunciation - is it all right the way it looks now? 2. The superlative in Scots isn't made using "mairst" but "maist", but obviously there's some general mistake somewhere (someone wrongly created a template?) - how do I correct this? Thanks for answering (there's no hurry :-)), Duncan MacCall 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the information. I knew of course that Greek script would have been preferable, but I did not have a source for its spelling, but I now have the solution for similar issues in the future. Thanks again! Djlayton4 08:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I saw your synopsis in ἄγγελος and thought I should write something to you about the dashes. Well, in my opinion, there are two good reasons for keeping them while transcribing Linear-B symbols into Latin alphabet.The first one is the academic tradition. The second is to avoid the misunderstanding that there actually were in Mycenaean Greek words like "atoroqo" or "rawageta". The actual words would be rather "anthroqwos" and "lawagetas". Your thoughts? --flyax 12:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that I have seen this, and am looking into it. I'll try to get back to you as soon as possible. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 21:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, I have it set up, but don't want to plow ahead without more feedback. Or perhaps no-one (else) much cares? Cheers, Robert Ullmann 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I care! Has Dijan noted to you that many (most?) etymologies deriving a word from "Turkish" are actually from Ottoman Turkish, or from Old Turkish? --EncycloPetey 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<snotty child voice used to exude sarcasm>Did you know that nearly every entry tagged as a Greek derivation should be an Ancient Greek derivation?</snotty child voice used to exude sarcasm> The switch to etyl is a lateral move for incorrectly tagged entries. This is a switch to an easier, more tenable, and more flexible structure, but it does take most of our current errors with it. However, some of the etymology templates which shouldn't be etymology templates will be highlighted by the move, so it will allow us to fix some of our mistakes, but not all of them. However, these mistakes will not be magnified or hidden by the transition. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 02:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Greek problem is one I've been aware of for a long time. I noted the Turkish problem because I only recently became aware of it, and thought you and others might not yet know. --EncycloPetey 02:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I knew you did (I've clarified my statement). Ultimately, I imagine a lot of our etymology templates could use some tweaking. I'd be willing to bet my liver that some of our French derivations should be Old or Middle French derivations, but we've no one with the kind of expertise required to do such things. Ultimately, such things are fairly minor issues, in my opinion, that we'll simply have to live with until we get contributors with the capacity to make such differentiations. The Greek thing is easy, as, aside from perhaps a few dozen words, all English words currently categorized as Greek derivations are actually Ancient Greek derivations (if anyone wants to help out, it's a big and tedious resorting task). -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 02:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, without the lateral move, doing them all by hand, means eyes on the cases. Boring though. And we can always hunt down the ones we want to improve. AF is doing a few (the code works, first try ;-) but it is not looking for them, so you'll note it is almost always doing them in combination with something else as it trips over them. So very slowly for now. And see new section at Template talk:etyl please. Robert Ullmann 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to add more to the control table (those with ordinary language codes)? It is working well, just takes care. If we settle on the etyl templates for others, we can add all those as well. Robert Ullmann 00:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I set up a few, and it is working. Time to set up the other ones that are single languages, and then the ones that are convertable to etyl-specific names? Robert Ullmann 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to. Should I put everything, or start with some subset? -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We've done the subset I think; we can do all the single languages; it just takes care as mistakes will be painful to fix. I won't restart it (picking up the table) until after my sleep phase (time to eat goat and sleep now) I will check it myself. Robert Ullmann 01:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll get to work. It'll take me some time to work through it all, so don't expect them all to magically be there tomorrow. I share your concern about pissing in the pool. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 01:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I rechecked your additions and set it to work; seems to be munching them up happily. Probably we can just leave that list as is for a while. (And while we think about the etyl: extensions.) Very good. Robert Ullmann 16:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon. Just twenty more or so and it'll cover it. Everything else can (or needs to) be done by hand. Pleeeeaaaaase? -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 04:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Added your additional table (-MChin. see notes there in talk). I re-ran User:Robert Ullmann/t18, note that because it only re-checks the first 10 uses of each template, the numbers don't fully reflect what has been fixed by AF or others so far, unless the total for the template is ≤ 10. AF is happily munching away on these as well as a bunch of rules for pronunciaion sections, so it often can do several things on one edit. Robert Ullmann 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, sir. I needed to use the {{helpme}}, but stuff was missing, so I filled in the hole in the template, which also had a hole needing filling, etc, etc. That's why. I hae finished with the {{helpme}}, there's no need to restore it.--Chris Wattson 09:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, sir. Do you mind redirecting them to wikipedia templates?--Chris Wattson 13:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the way you've used the IPA with Αὐσονία, you're claiming that σον is a closed syllable, and that the stressed syllable starts with a vowel. When I saw it, I heard a glottal stop in my head. The stress mark comes at the start of the syllable: [aɸsoˈnia]. Also, diphthongs are normally marked with a non-syllabicity mark, [aʊ̯soníaː]. The tie bar you used is normally used for affricates like [t͡s] (it makes no difference whether it ties above or below), though what you have will be understood. Kwamikagami 09:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's the template that's screwed up with the diphthongs. It also links to the English IPA chart, which won't be of any help for letters like [ɸ]. Kwamikagami 09:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad it's just a programming bug.

As for the diphthongs, it wouldn't make much difference with [a͜ʊ]. However, [i͜u] would be ambiguous: there's no way to tell whether that's supposed to be a rising diphthong, [i̯u], or a falling diphthong, [iu̯]. Kwamikagami 09:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw your requested entry for alt#Irish, but I don't think your source is right. At μέλος you say "Also see Irish alt, an unrelated word with a similar double meaning", but what double meaning is that? "Member" and "tune, song"? Modern Irish alt doesn't mean either of those things; if anything, it shares the multiple meanings of Latin articulus. It can mean "joint" of the body (especially "knuckle") or of a mechanical device, and it can mean "article" in most of that word's sense (an article of a law or treaty; a newspaper or encyclopedia article; a grammatical article). The usual word for "member" in both meanings of μέλος (member = limb, member of a group) in Irish is ball, while a tune or melody is fonn. Angr 17:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. At [3] I see that Old Irish alt can mean "meter" (of poetry) and is attested once in the compound marb-alt (marb = dead) meaning "death dirge". That's the closest thing to a musical meaning for alt I could find. Angr 17:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is really frustrating I can't figure out how to get IRC to work through the proxies or whatever. Crashes one of them very nicely, I have a DoS attack that affects a few thousand people ... sites like mibbit (?) just launch chatzilla (or whatever) and down it goes. So where are we? AF is happily munching ety templates, and no amount of yelling, screaming, begging, cajoling or anything will get WMF to run the XML dumps. Robert Ullmann 05:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the many times where I wish I had even a basic understanding of...well.....everything computer. Concerning the dumps, I hope that Conrad's suggestion of using Wiktdev to keep a live, dumpable version works out. Daily dumps would be amazing. While we're on the subject, have you ever given any thought to working on Wiktdev? I'm growing impatient waiting for yellow/orange links and language tabs. I have to imagine you would be of great assistance to that project. Anyway, I'm glad to hear that the etyl conversion is going nicely. I suppose the next big step for us humans is to figure out what to do with language family etymology categories. I suppose if I had to suggest a policy off the top of my head, I would simply say drop them altogether, but I'm waffling on the subject. Also, still plenty of {{Ger.}} conversions which remain to be done. Finally, the topic of an over-arching link template has been floating about my mind for awhile now. Did you ever read User_talk:EncycloPetey#Template:l? -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 06:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Working from a Mac as I do, I found the IRC nearly impossible to access after Connel's little link went away, until I went through mibbit. You might try that. It works reasonably well for me. Just select freenode.net from the second group of IRC connections, set the channel to #wiktionary, and type in your username, then clik "go". --EncycloPetey 06:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

When I tried mibbit previously, it crashed the proxy exactly as Chatzilla did. Now it seems to work. (me, admitting to trying something that might crash a serious network node at 10:00 AM on a work-day ... never) Robert Ullmann 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(now mibbit fails again) I upgraded my XML updater to give priority to templates, so I have an XML dump with the current version of all of the templates as of a few minutes ago, even though it is still missing ~100K edits and ~70K new entries from the last few months. Point being that the trans languages report is much more useful as it recognizes many more languages. Robert Ullmann 17:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. Definition three is specifically the British region, while definition seven is a rather broader term, referring to the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Definition three has specific legal boundaries, while definition seven most certainly does not. Ultimately, I think that none of definitions one through six are meaningful before WWI or so, and the term certainly existed prior to that. Of course, please feel quite free to dispute this. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I think, really, that sense #7 is the root of the other senses, and has been mostly supplanted by sense #3: there are places that might have been considered "Palestine" two hundred years ago that aren't now, and vice versa, because the British took a vague term and made it precise. It would be nice to clarify this somehow, either by ordering the senses cleverly, or by using subsenses, or simply by adding usage notes, but I don't think I'm equal to the task. (And I suppose we probably need senses #8 and #9, referring to the Roman province and the region it covered, seeing as that's where the term comes from to begin with.) —RuakhTALK 02:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well.....that's a little sticky. Because then I wonder if we would be obligated to include the definition of how it was used under each regime......which is clearly outside of the scope of our project. I wonder if we couldn't.......slide it a bit. "A region in the Levant, roughly between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, with exact boundaries depending on time period" or something. Yes, yes, I know it needs some work. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about {{rfp|lang=Latin}}. I shall probably make use of that in future. †﴾(u):Raifʻhār(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

losing face and the policy/convention for the treatment of multi-word idioms[edit]

Remember that we generally don't want redirects, but rather short entries. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 01:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally, yes. However, not in the case of multi-word idioms which vary in form only due to conjugation and/or choice of pronoun, such as this one. I shan’t revert you, but I just wish to note that I am acting in accordance with policy/convention (whichever it is in this case). †﴾(u):Raifʻhār(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice to ..... read? from you again. I've added an update to WT:GP#XML dumps, but am recording a CD over the next weekend and so will have little brain-power to attack this for a while. By the by I've been meaning to admonish you for the outrageously sensible {{helpme}} ;). Conrad.Irwin 00:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I held off on creating templates for other parts of speech, since I don't know enough about Persian grammar to know what "forms" might be included on the inflection line. --EncycloPetey 20:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I could see, if there are other forms, they're not currently being included. It's an easy step to add more functionality later. As I see it, the templates should facilitate what is being done, more than what should be done. It's an easy step to, in the future, set higher standards and have the template tag entries which don't meet them, like your little tr trick. However, there is little point in doing so until there is someone who wants to do that sort of cleanup. And, as I imagine you've already garnered, fa-noun was a nearly complete rip-off of fa-adj, with the only difference being the title functionality. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 20:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

But if gender is important for Persian grammar, then that would be an easier thing to include at the outset rather than later. Likewise for plurals or whatever other form might be useful. I'd rather get some quick feedback from Pistachio first. --EncycloPetey 21:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Only the first use seems to be eligible for inclusion. Is it? I can't quite get this. DCDuringTALK 21:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if I might be the wrong person to ask on this. However, I'll give you what I can. First, I'm skeptical of def #1. I'll do some searching, and see if I can find out exactly what this is, and create the entry for it. However, in general, I'm still very adamantly against entries for transliterations. The second sense seems to be a valid one, but I wonder if it really falls under CFI, being a distinctly proper noun and all. The third is similar to the second. Also, I wonder if there might be a good and lawful definition something along the lines of, "The study of Greek history, culture, language, etc., especially of Ancient Greece." I'm not sure about that, though. In any case, count on me to create a grc entry or two, but past that, this is really not my area of expertise. Sorry. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So, it turns out that most of def #1 may be a scanno for Zeus Hellenios, see Ἑλλήνιος ‎(Hellḗnios). -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find usage of the field of study sense at bgc, though the absence may have been an artifact of how I tried to exclude hits that I knew were irrelevant.

I had read a bit of an article to the effect that the wear on a particular inscription caused a misreading. But it seems to have had a (dated) life of its own with 178 raw bgc hits for "zeus-hellenics". Certainly there is a lot of recycling of the same quotations and even more of the same story (eg, Josephus reporting on the Samaritan temple). If I were more convinced, I would have entered it already. This is not something that gets me agitated, unlike other issues which you may have noticed, but, having put some time into it, I wanted to give it a chance. I'll let it go. DCDuringTALK 23:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, but look at the google book hits. The first five I looked at were clearly all Hellenios. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 23:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

D'oh. Sorry. I looked at another 20 and they all seem the same. I'm not used to getting so many hits that are all scannos... and my connection is slow... and my eyesight's not too good.... Thanks for your patience. DCDuringTALK 01:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[[4]] Do I need to edit the citations page [[5]] to meet the rfv challenge [[6]] by October 6, 2008?

To be honest, I don't deal a whole lot with rfv, but I would suggest noting that you believe the entry to be sufficiently cited, and one of the folks who knows more about that will make a decision and perhaps close the rfv. Sorry I'm not more knowledgeable about this. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 04:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, that's why I left the {{attention|la}} there, because I didn't know. PS: Did you see the requests I put on Robert's talk page? I think there are a couple of things you might be interested in. I'll take a look at the word list. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't we have entries for the cardinal numbers 0, 1, 6, 34, 100, and 900? Since we already have 101, what makes 102 so different? Teh Rote 10:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, zero through nine are atomic, and so should have entries. One hundred is an important level of numbers, and so perhaps deserves an entry. 34 is a redirect to thirty-four, and so properly doesn't exist (nor do I think thirty-four should, as a matter of fact). 101 and 900 are idiomatic words, not numbers......even if they are numbers as well. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 17:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So the important numbers are the ones that should be added to the queue? Teh Rote 20:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What should be added to the queue is important words, completely regardless of whether they are numbers or not. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 05:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, while the importance of words is certainly subjective, entries which we should not have should certainly not be in that queue, which is why I removed 102. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would go with calling the language Chiricahua, but acknowledge on the Category page that is is also called Mescalero-Chiricahua Apache. I've only ever heard the language itself called Chiricahua. --EncycloPetey 20:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could you look at the Greek translation for this please, it is nonstandard. --Jackofclubs 07:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I formatted the translations as they should be; however I am, as a rule, skeptical of anything written by Pumpie (a user notorious for poor formatting). The spelling was not Ancient Greek (it was lacking a breathing mark), and I am not confident that, even with that rectified, it is a correct translation. It will take a great deal of digging for me to ascertain whether it is a reasonable translation or not (my sources are poor when it comes to phrases, especially ones which are not especially idiomatic). Quite frankly, in my opinion, the entry should not exist (SOP, encyclopedic content), and I am thus reluctant to put a lot of time into it. At the very least, the definition needs to be significantly reworked (I am not the person to ask for the improvement of English entries; I'm a technical guy, and severely lacking in the nuance requisite for this work). In any case, the formatting is now correct. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 08:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that, I'll make sure to mention it to cirwin next time I see him, and I'll try and correct the most recent ones (that I can find). Hopefully Autoformat will catch the rest, but I do see that now. Thanks for letting me know about these issues. --Neskayakanetsv 01:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: Earlier today, we were 20,000 entries ahead of the French. That lead is now only 10,000. We are less than 6,000 away from reaching one million entries. If we don't reach one million entries in the next 24 hours, I expect the French will get there first. --EncycloPetey 00:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Fuck if I care. I remain convinced that the English Wiktionary has a bigger penis than the French Wiktionary, completely regardless of what the count says. Even if it was an important issue for me, what could I possibly do? I have no bots to run, and bots are the only way we are going to write 6,000 entries in twenty four hours. But I say again, what's the big deal? Anyone remotely involved in the Wiktionary project knows that en has tons more content than fr. What's the harm in letting a non-English project get a moment of spotlight for a change? -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 00:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We have three bots running, but every article counts. The prestige of being the first to reach 1 million entries is a one-time opportunity, and as I agree with you about our superior quality, I'd rather we had that honor than the French (whose coverage is much narrower and shallower). If you don't care, there's probably nothing I can say to change that, but are you willing to help for the benefit of those who do care, even if you yourself do not? --EncycloPetey 00:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We were over a million already, read the WT:BP guys :). The French have no way of counting properly so *:p*. Conrad.Irwin 00:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and so is theirs, so chances are they are over as well; but as you noted, their drive has been quite sudden; I doubt they beat us. Conrad.Irwin 00:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC) (comment edited for grammar, clarity, and overall aesthetic value by -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 00:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Well, right now we have about 1300 to go on the counter, they have 7000 plus, but LmaltierBot is running at speed, while we are not adding more than one every few minutes. If this goes on for a few hours, we "lose". Robert Ullmann 13:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Anyone remotely involved in the Wiktionary project knows that en has tons more content than fr": Could you fill me in on this? I haven't contributed very much to fr, but I have contributed enough to notice that its definitions are generally out of date (because they were bot-imported from old editions of the Academy's dictionary); is that what you mean? —RuakhTALK 13:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

They also have (1) far fewer pages with multiple language entries, a fact which is hidden by a page-count-only statistic, (2) a far greater ratio of "form of" entries to lemmata, and (3) a narrower language coverage, consisting primarily of French and other Romance languages. The English Wiktionary has far more Russian, Ancient Greek, Hebrew, Serbian, Latin, etc. and thus has broader language coverage. --EncycloPetey 17:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I add numeral value and some real ancient letter, please find word using those, try to find the real hellenik ancient word where the Gamma was used like a G et not GH, like Cosmos (Gosmos et not kosmos), those word exist in latin and uses C & Q, in new greek the are always remplace them with K Nemzag 18:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that "בטלהא" is the right spelling in the etymology section of the article? I'm thinking it should be "בטלה" or "בטלא" (with "בטלתא" being the emphatic form). --334a 16:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've double-checked it, and it is the spelling given by my source (BDAG), however that is as far as I can assure its accuracy. It's translated as "talk idly", so perhaps "בטלהא" is an adverb? Not really sure what to tell you on this one. I purchased a small book on Aramaic a few years back to supplement my fairly rudimentary understanding of Hebrew. I may have gotten as far as halfway through the book's introduction. In short, I'm quite willing to defer to your superior understanding of the language. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 04:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Atelaes, I managed to get my hands on a copy of Bauer's lexicon. It turns out you had the letters "ה" ("h") and "ת" ("t") (very similar looking) mixed up, so it was the emphatic form I posted above. :) --334a 22:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's definitely a ה, but if you've got an edition that uses a ת, then it's probably a typo in my edition, especially if you don't think that בטלהא is a word. So, I'm quite happy with the changes you've made to the entry. Thanks for taking the time to do all that. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 23:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit in Yule shows striking similarity to this of User:KYPark, who has been repeatedly reprimanded and blocked for the dubitability of his edits. The original author of the article had written "influenced by Old Norse"(see ref), which this user altered to "cognate with" without providing scientific evidence. I have found out the scientific source (one of the most prominent in Scandinavia) corroborating the Old Norse origin as shown by the original contributor. If you have evidence for any other theory (whose existence I highly doubt) for the oigin of the word, I suggest writing it next to and not instead of the current and sourced one, since there are more than enough entries with several versions concerning their etymology. Deleting scientific lingistic sources and the sole (as for now) linguistically sound and sourced explication as you did can make the edit seem anything but convincing. Please refer to the discussion page of the article as well. Bogorm 17:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I ought to urge you to comment on the Danish scientific source only provided that you have knowledge of the language or have consuted a knowledgeable editor if you have any doubts of the diligence with which I quoted it (and which I confess). Therefore I only pray you only to provide evidence for any alternative theory, if there exists one. Bogorm 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Online Etymology Dictionaryendorses the Old Norse origin (see the article). Now the linguistic sources are two - one of them accessible for everyone with native English tongue. Bogorm 18:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added my source. I remain confident that the etymology I originally put down is correct, as I trust the OED far more than etymonline (a four sentence stub in the Danish 'pedia does little to bolster my confidence in the ODS). However, since you have cited two valid sources, I will allow it to remain, even if it probably is outdated. In any case, the users may assess the sources and make up their own minds. I am well aware of KYPark, and their etymological shenanigans, being the author of many of their reprimands and blocks. Your didactic tone is wearing my patience thin. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 04:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

But you have mentioned "Online Ox. En. Dict." as a source without adding a ref to the Internet-address of its entry. Is it verifiable by every reader? Besides, OED can stand for both Online Etymology Dictionary and Oxford English dictionary, therefore I am using a more maladroit, but unambiguous abbreviation... Bogorm 07:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The OED online is not available to anyone without a subscription, and I thus did not feel it useful to include an address. The abbreviation is for Oxford English Dictionary. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 07:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started a workpage where I'm keeping track of these. The prelimnary list for November is in, and etymology help will be appreciated. --EncycloPetey 17:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over these, and with the exception of heteronym (which I suspect is hetero- + -nym), there's not much I can do, short of perhaps writing νυχθήμερον ‎(nukhthḗmeron) for nychthemeron. There are a few with Latin present active infinitives, which I think you are better suited for fixing. Sorry I'm so impotent here. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 01:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you get the time and motivation, would you be willing to add to mare the sense relevant to nightmare? My incompetence with Middle/Old English is hindering me from understanding quite what's going on with this. Many thanks. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 07:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You said: "An explanation of my reversion here: First, this is a Hebrew word, not an English one, and therefore does not get an English pronunciation (such a thing would exist at Jehovah, Yahweh, etc.). Also a number of your edits made no substantial change in content, but added bad/awkward grammar. Any questions feel free to ask."

I disagree with your blind revert.

Yehowah/Jehovah or Yahweh/Jahveh are vocalisations of the Tetragrammaton. The word haShem ("the Name") is not a vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton but the pronunciation of an hermeneutical surrogate word.

What do you mean by "bad/awkward grammar"? --Pvasiliadis 06:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things: First of all, the citations tab is meant for citations (see WT:CITE), not references. I've thus deleted Citations:raca. Second, Aramaic is written in Hebrew or Syriac script, not Latin. So, the entry you're trying to create should be at ריקה or ריקא, from what I can tell. If it is an English word, then the L2 should be English, not Aramaic. I'll look into this further. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 08:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I thought I'd let you know that the L2 you put here doesn't match up with {{rn}}. I switched it before realizing that perhaps {{rn}} should be changed instead. I'll leave it in your hands, as I know nothing of the language. In any case, either Category:Kirundi language or Category:Rundi language should be deleted. Cheers. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 07:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be Kirundi. I've done some investigation, and the prefix is not optional. The "word" Rundi, without the prefix, is a naked root form and would not be used as a word in the language. Removing the prefix in Kirundi is kind of like removing the inflectional ending of a Latin or Greek word. The result is almost understandable, but isn't a word. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long. No I wouldn't object. :) Hakeem.gadi 08:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more northern than southern. I expect a Joradanian would render it as IPA:/kus/. I am quite sure the word is used in Jordan and Palestine (the word is just too wide spread in the Mashriq to be missing from Jordanian and Palestenian Arabic), however I don't remember hearing it from a speaker of these dialects. طيز however shouldn't change across these dialects. Hakeem.gadi 04:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What happened was that a newbie added a question (something about wikidragons?) on his page, and centered the text while they were at it. That newbie then removed the question, leaving the centered text. I don't think the centered text was necessary. Teh Rote 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

anatomia Needs Latin section. See this request for the motivation. A quote from the original text would be greatly appreciated, if it can be procured. Many thanks. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

However, without knowing which of the works (or where in the fragmentary works) of Caelius Aurelianus to examine, I can't provide a quote. Searching for "anatomia" on the web in various ways (even with a conjunctive search for "Caelius Aurelianus") is not proving fruitful, and Wikisource does not have his texts. --EncycloPetey 00:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it gave me a little more to search for, but I turned up nothing. I've checked the OED's listings of cited works, and there's nothing given there either. In order to find it, I'd have to acquire a copy of Aurelianus' surviving works and do a page by page visual inspection, which doesn't seem like a terribly productive thing to do. --EncycloPetey 08:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey I created my first page, totalism, using two sources, can you let me know how I did? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks ok to me. I made a minor formatting change to it. Other than that, I can't find anything wrong with it. One very minor quibble: Most established editors do not use footnote notation for references, preferring to simply state the references, without clarifying specifically which information was taken from them. There is, as of yet, no official rule against this, but it's considered by some to be slightly 'pediaesque. However, you must understand that I almost solely work with etymologies and non-English entries. Writing definitions for English entries requires a certain subtlety and sophistication which I lack. Three editors which immediately come to my mind who would be able to offer a more useful critique are User:Visviva, User:Ruakh, and User:DCDuring. There are, of course, plenty of other folks who are quite capable, but those three stand out as people consistently skilled with that sort of stuff. A couple of other notes, having nothing to do with that entry. First, you'll find bluntness to be far more prevalent here than on the 'pedia. As a rather smaller family, we generally have less need for diplomacy, preferring to simply get things done. Also, you'll find that, as a 'pedia admin, you may experience (perhaps unfairly) greater scrutiny than the average new user. We've simply had too much experience here with 'pedians coming over, trying to rewrite policy and infrastructure, templates, etc., without having a clue how we do things. Finally, where Wikipedia often has a policy page on just about everything, our policy pages are sparse and quite often outdated. If you're doing something wrong, rest assured that someone will come along and yell at you for it. Again, perhaps unfair, but it works for us. Any questions, please feel quite free to ask. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 08:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the words of wisdom. I have no intention of changing how things are done around here, quite the opposite I would just like to learn how it is already done. :) Thanks for the formatting to totalism. I think I will do some more work with psychology terms that don't have pages here yet. I kind of like the footnote notation for references, but could you show me an example of a good page where things are referenced in an alternate fashion? Cirt (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm just the kind of asshole to force you into it. :-) And yes, it can be a difficult decision sometimes (speaking as someone who also works with a language which didn't use capitalization). -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 06:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, only half a dozen spatial dialects? Piece of cake! There are more than a dozen modern pronunciation schemes in use for Neo-Latin (they teach it in school as "Classical" pronunciation, but they're wrong). And of course each modern Romance langage comes from a different regional dialect. Let's see... that's how many now? --EncycloPetey 20:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

With Ivan's help, the Latin entry for december (note capitalization change) is much improved. Ivan added an etymology; I moved the entry to lower case, added the inflection and descendants, and inserted a couple of quotes. --EncycloPetey 03:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

When I may express mine opinion here: the explanation of the usage of the Ancient Greek word as an attributive is already present in its own article, therefore the redundancy seems rather unjustifiable and certes unrelated to Albanian history, but to the peculiarities of the Ancient Greek. This is my humble opinion as a person being involved neither with Albania nor with Ancient Greek. Bogorm 12:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Bogorm. There is zero justification for including that information. While σωτήρ ‎(sōtḗr) certainly was an epithet of Zeus, it was also used in a variety of other ways. Unless you can provide convincing evidence that this fact relates specifically to the etymologies in question, it will not stay. Also, if you continue to reproduce the information without discussion, you will quickly find yourself blocked. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 19:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you find this entry, which is a mere capitalisation of the already present one (with the whole content being copied)? Is its existence reasonable? If it is justified, shall I now create ἭРА next to Ἥρα? Bogorm 16:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No. We have specific standards on orthography for Ancient Greek. It's possibly to argue that those standards are unreasonable, but no one has done so yet. I have already discussed these standards with Nemzag, and feel little hesitation in deleting that entry. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 19:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Here you discuss the importance of Armenian cognates for Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and Iranian(Persian and so forth) words. Reciprocally I thought that it is vital to have Latin, Sanskrit, Iranian and Armenian cognates in Ancient Greek entries. What I did not understand is, if you are showing præference for this group of languages, why are Lithuanian and Gothic there and why cannot Old Norse cohabit with Gothis and Lithuanian, given their æqual distance from the aforementioned group of languages (Especially when there is the Gothic-Old Norse hypothesis, i. e. Old Norse and Gothic should be treated æqually). Bogorm 20:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Because there were about twenty things wrong with it, foremost the title, and I've long since lost the patience to actually clean up the rubbish you post. You should count your lucky stars you weren't blocked. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 12:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)